HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-28 Minutes10
I*
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 28,
1994 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert B. Reynolds, Gary R. Head, Tom Suchecki, Jana
Lynn Britton, Charles Nickle, Jerry Allred, Phyllis
Hall Johnson, Joe Tarvin, and Kenneth Pummill
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Don Bunn, Jerry Rose, Sharon
Langley, members of the press and others
CONSENT AGENDA:
Commissioner Britton requested items C. and D. on the consent agenda be discussed and
voted on separately.
MTNTTTV..R e
Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of
March 14, 1994.
FINAL PLAT - GLENBROOK PHASE II
A final plat of Glenbrook Phase II submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf
of Danny Villines for property located south of Mission, west of
Crossover Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains 10 acres with 32 proposed lots.
MOTION
A motion was made by Mr. Suchecki to approve the consent agenda excluding items C.
and D.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill.
The motion carried 9-0-0.
Planning Commission
• March 28, 1994
Page 2
Chairman Tarvin advised the City Attorney was present to comment on the Commission's
request for an opinion on the issue of a preliminary plat with smaller lot sizes than
those adjacent to existing development. He reminded the Commission the neighboring
residents were concerned the new subdivision would lower the value of their property.
He stated the question was whether the Commission had any power to require those lots
be larger if they met the minimum requirements by city ordinance.
Mr, Jerry Rose advised he had looked at the ordinances in the zoning code and found
that traditionally lot sizes were determined by minimum requirements set out in the
zoning standards for each zoning district. He advised he had examined the ordinances
to determine whether or not there were any other ways in which lot sizes could be
varied. He stated Section 159.46 of the code allowed variances from minimum size
requirements if an undue hardship was shown. He also pointed out Section 159,53
stated the use, design, and presumably the size of lots had to conform to provisions
of the zoning ordinance.
He went on to say that, if no zoning law existed in the area (the growth area) the
code provided minimum standards. He went on to say that, under the existing
ordinances, it appeared there was very little discretion and very little choice but
to enforce those minimum lot sizes.
Mr. Tarvin stated it seemed the only recourse would be to request the City Council
consider a new zone with larger lot sizes.
. Mr. Rose advised a new zoning classification was one way to obtain larger sizes. He
added he would consult with the Planning staff regarding an overlay district.
11
IOr!
Planning Commission
• March 28, 1994
Page 3
WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT #1
CROSSOVER ASSOCIATES - NE CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE & CROSSOVER
The next item was a request for a waiver of the subdivision regulations (lot split
#1) submitted by Crossover Associates for property located on the northeast corner
of Huntsville Road (Highway 16) and Crossover Road (Highway 265). The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Bunn advised the request was to split off approximately .6 of an acre from a 3.39
acre tract. He stated water was available on the west side of Highway 265. He noted
sewer service was not directly available to the lot and would have to be pumped to
a higher elevation to an existing sewer near the site. He further stated there was
a question about the flood plain but, according to the maps, the 100 -year flood plain
was contained within the banks of the stream. He advised the applicant needed to
look at upstream flows and ensure buildings were above the elevation required for any
flows coming from upstream.
He recommended the lot split be approved subject to the Highway Department approval
of access from Highway 265 and/or Highway 16 (including the existing curb cuts); the
dedication of additional right-of-way on Highway 16 and Highway 265 to bring the
total amount of right-of-way on each side to 50 feet; the provision of a private
sewer easement on the remaining tract for a sewer connection; and the condition that
any approval be contingent on approval of a setback variance by the Board of
Adjustment. He advised the property could be developed without the variance, but the
proposed use of the lot required the variance.
• Mr. Grandville Harper advised they were required to have a 20 -foot setback for a
service station canopy and a 50 -foot setback for the building. He explained the
variance request was for a 15 -foot and 35 -foot setback respectively.
Ms. Little advised this matter was further complicated because staff had requested
additional right-of-way.
Mr. Harper advised that, when the plan was conceived, the proposed building was
designed to be within the existing setback requirements but the right-of-way line had
been moved an additional 15 feet to the east.
Ms. Britton expressed concern the tract might not be a buildable piece of property.
She added she believed the issue was the access because the driveway would be on top
of the intersection. She noted there was a traffic light and, allowing the split
with a bunch of curb cuts, would muck it all up. She also stated a gas station was
the worst possible thing to construct because of the ingress and egress and the huge
curb cuts required for the radius of the gasoline trucks. She also pointed out that,
if the lot split was not approved, there was much more control over the property
because it would have to come through large scale development as a three acre site.
Ms. Little advised the staff had discussed curb cuts on Highway 16 with the
applicant. She noted there was a possibility of one ingress/egress further to the
east but it would require building a bridge over to the subject tract. She stated
the status of those negotiations was unknown.
Mr. Harper noted the Highway Department engineers had viewed the site, approved the
curb cuts and deemed them adequate.
Mr. Nickle suggested the request be tabled until the Board of Adjustment had made a
decision regarding the variance.
Mr. Harper explained he needed the split because the corner wa being purchased by a
different entity. He noted there are no current plans to develop the balance of the
property.
105]
Planning Commission
. March 28, 1994
Page 4
Mr. Tarvin asked if the dimensions shown on the lot included the additional right-of-
way required for Crossover in the future.
The staff answered no.
Mr. Tarvin noted the east/west dimension on the subject tract was going to be less.
Mr. Bunn advised there was an additional 10 feet of right-of-way required on the
south side and 15 to 20 feet along the west side.
Mr. Tarvin pointed out that would cause the tract to be very narrow.
Ms. Little noted the length of property adjacent to Highway 16 would be approximately
90 feet.
Ms. Britton contended the fact the Highway Department approved the curb cuts should
not be the deciding factor since it was the Planning Commission's decision as to
whether the curb cuts should be made. She commented in the past there had been
concern that the City did not have control along a state highway. She further
stated this was a decision the Commission had the authority to make and they could
require higher standards than the Highway Department.
In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Little advised the City did not have any
control over the granting of a curb cut on a state highway. She noted she would be
glad to contact someone to give a briefing on the types of items the Highway
Department considered. She added the City did frequently coordinate with the Highway
• Department. She also advised that, in areas where curb cuts had already been
approved, the Highway Department was reluctant to do anything about them.
Mr. Tarvin clarified the Subdivision Committee could not change the location of a
curb cut on a large scale development.
Ms. Little
pointed out
the Commission could
request, as a condition
of
the
development,
the distance
between the curb cuts
and intersections longer
in
the
interest of safety.
Ms. Britton contended that, although the City could not override a decision by the
Highway Department to deny a curb cut, the City could deny one the lot split or a
large scale development because of the curb cuts.
Ms. Little stated Mr. Bunn made a reasonable suggestion that perhaps the Commission
would like to retain control of this tract by requiring it be sent through the large
scale development process which would give the opportunity to review the placement
of the curb cuts.
Mr. Bunn explained that, since the tract would contain only .6 of an acre if the
split was approved, a building permit would be the only requirement to develop the
tract.
I OJ0 con
Mr. Allred moved to approve the lot split as requested subject to the staff comments.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Pummill.
The motion carried 8-1-0 with Commissioner Britton voting "no".
In answer to a request for clarification from the staff, Mr. Allred advised the
motion did not include a requirement for a large scale development.
Planning Commission
• March 28, 1994
Page 5
R -O --W VACATION V-4: PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT: CONDITIONAL USE CU94-5
MIRE HOWARD - OFF REVERE PLACE, E OF CAMBRIDGE ROAD
The next item was a request for a Right -of -Way Vacation V-4, Property Line
Adjustment, Conditional Use CU94-5 submitted by Mike Howard for property located off
Revere Place, east of Cambridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential. The request is to vacate the easternmost 300 feet of right-of-way of
Revere Place and for a tandem lot.
Mr. Bunn explained the request was by the Park Place Homeowners Association for lots
19A and 19B, Phase III of Park Place. He explained the right-of-way in question was
a 50 -foot strip between lots 19A and 19B. He noted the street did not go anywhere
and was bounded on the south side by another phase of Park Place. He noted neither
the staff nor the utility companies had any objection to the vacation. He pointed
out the property line adjustment associated with the vacation would make 19B a
buildable lot. He explained normally staff approved property line adjustments, but
since this adjustment created a tandem lot, it was brought before the Commission for
approval. He advised the third request was a conditional use for a tandem lot since
the lot being created by the right-of-way vacation and the property line adjustment
would have only a 50 -foot frontage.
He recommended the Planning Commission first approve the right-of-way vacation which
would go to the Council for approval, then approve the property line adjustment and
the conditional use for the tandem lot. He explained the approval of the property
line adjustment and the conditional use for a tandem lot would need to be contingent
on the Council's approval of the vacation of the right-of-way.
. Ms. Britton noted she was not opposed to the actual vacation of the right-of-way, but
pointed out there was not a request for a cul-de-sac turnaround to be constructed.
She expressed concern the access easement would touch the recreational area and also
lot 19B which would require a 50 -foot easement.
In answer to
a question from
Ms. Britton, Mr.
Bunn advised
the
parking
lot
of
the
recreational
area was used as
a turnaround.
Ms. Little advised this matter had been discussed at length with the Property Owners
Association for Park Place. She explained the POA was creating the lot in order to
sell it and equip their recreation area. She noted the Street Department had, at one
time, asked for a cul-de-sac but the POA felt they could not afford to construct a
cul-de-sac and have money to equip the recreation area. She further explained the
existing turnaround was a compromise.
In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Ms. Little stated the recreational area was
not accessed from Lensfield Place. She noted there was a 50 -foot easement but it was
not used.
Ms. Britton stated it could be used and she was concerned about it.
Mike Howard, representing the Property Owner's Association for Park Place, submitted
a handout with a diagram and other information to the Commission to help explain the
requests. He reiterated the purpose in selling the property would be to equip their
common area. He explained the original plan was to subdivide and sell two lots to
optimize the profits for the Association; but, after talking to city staff, they were
encouraged to design the tandem lot. He further explained the turnaround was put
in about four years ago at the request of the City. He added they had a potential
buyer interested in the lot who was present and had submitted a letter included in
the handout. He further stated the handout detailed how much area would be taken
. from the common area and the trees that would have to be removed if a cul-de-sac had
to be constructed.
!07
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
40 Page 6
Another representative from the Park Place Association stated they would have to
withdraw their requests if they were required to put in a cul-de-sac.
The potential buyer of the property, Walter Parderson, advised he objected to a cul-
de-sac at that location because he intended to build a house on the lot and the cul-
de-sac would force him to place the house farther back on the lot. He also expressed
concern regarding the large tree which would have to be removed to make room for the
house if the cul-de-sac was constructed.
Mr. Tarvin pointed out there were two subdivisions in the general area with only one
access point. He suggested this might be an opportunity for the Commission to remedy
that situation. He added he had looked at the property on the east side where the
north/south street ran into Boardwalk and it appeared Revere Place could be extended
east to make an intersection with the north/south street. He pointed out this would
give the subdivision more than one ingress/egress.
Ms. Little stated there was right-of-way in Park Place off of Victoria Lane (one
street to the south of Revere Place) and right-of-way off of Arthur's Court
(Boardwalk Subdivision) to the west so that Victoria Lane could connect to Arthur's
Court. She reminded the Commission that about 4 years ago the residents of Park
Place objected to such a connection so there was a compromise to have platted right-
of-way which had not been stubbed out. She noted there was a gravel coating covered
by grass.
Mr. Bunn stated the right-of-way had been designated as an emergency ingress/egress.
Ms. Britton advised she had received a compliant from a Park Place resident that a
house had built a driveway through the right-of-way. She noted the house appeared
to be very close to the right-of-way and it was impossible to discern where the
right-of-way should be located.
Ms. Little noted it would take a survey to show where the house is located and where
the right-of-way should be.
Mr. Nickle recalled the right-of-way was designated to be a base of gravel with no
grass yard so it would be accessible by fire trucks and emergency vehicles.
Me. Little advised she did read the records which did reflect the access was to be
gravel, but she understood it could be covered by grass so long as it would support
the weight of an emergency vehicle. She suggested this might be the occasion for the
Planning Commission to call upon the Park Place Home Owners Association to support
the paving of the access in exchange for approval of the tandem lot.
Mr. Allred suggested this matter be tabled until staff could review it.
Mr. Reynolds contended they were considering tabling something that was going to
happen on Revere because of something that had or had not happened on Victoria.
Ms. Little advised she believed the two were related because the POA was requesting
a vacation of a given right-of-way.
Mr. Nickle contended the point was if there was not usable right-of-way at the first
location, they might not want to give up other right-of-way.
Ms. Little stated the property owners had worked on this project for approximately
two years and she believed they were anxious for a resolution. She suggested the POA
would probably be willing to take motions back to their Board if an approval were
• given contingent upon Commission requirements. She added the POA had believed the
City had been an impediment to the creation of the lots. She clarified an earlier
statement made by one resident that the City had advised against creating two lots
and explained the City had said that, if two lots were created, a street had to be
•
•
0
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
Page 7
installed. She further stated the POA had spent a lot of time trying to work with
the City's regulations and it had been complicated for them. She added she believed
the POA would appreciate even a decision that the vacation of the right-of-way would
be recommended if the paving of Victoria Lane occurred. She added the City did not
currently have funds budgeted for such paving.
Mr. Suchecki recalled there was supposed to have been some sort of barrier so the
easement would be blocked against vehicle traffic except in case of an emergency, but
would allow foot and bicycle traffic.
Mr. Tarvin advised he has heard
more than one person
say it
had been
a mistake to
have that many houses with only one ingress/egress. He
stated
that, if
there was the
ability to extend the street with
the right-of-way, he
would not have a
problem with
vacating the other right-of-way;
but, if the right-of-way did
not exist
anymore, the
problem of only one entry still
existed. He stated
this
was an opportunity to
correct a problem.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Little advised that in Arkansas an
easement was a right-of-way and the City had the right to built a street on it.
MOTION
Mr. Reynolds moved to table the requests until the City Engineer and the Planning
staff had reviewed the area to ascertain if the street could be built through on
Victoria Lane.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle.
The motion carried 6-3-0 with Commissioners Allred, Britton, Nickle, Johnson,
Reynolds, and Tarvin voting "yes" and Commissioners Suchecki, Pummill, and Head
voting "now'.
Mr. Tarvin clarified this item was tabled until the next meeting.
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 8
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL NO, R94-12
ALLEN HOLLAND - OFF OLD OZARK TRAIL, WEST OF HOOT OWL LANE
The next item was a public hearing for rezoning request R94-12 submitted by Allen
Holland for property located off Old Ozark Trail, west of Hoot Owl Lane. The request
is to rezone 2.56 acres from A-1, Agricultural to R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr, Tim Conklin advised the property was currently developed with four duplexes. He
stated the applicant was requesting R-2 zoning in order to develop four additional
duplexes on the south side of Old Ozark Trail. He pointed out access to the proposed
duplexes would be off Old Ozark Trail which had just been improved by the City in the
last year. He added additional on-site and off-site improvements would be required
at the time of a large scale development, lot split, or subdivision. He advised
there currently was a 12 -inch water line and a 6 -inch sewer line along Highway 62 and
a 2 1/4 -inch water line along Old Ozark Trail. He stated the property to the north,
south, east, and west was currently A-1 zoning. He further stated there were single-
family homes directly across the highway, but the rest of the land was vacant. He
recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the requested rezoning.
In answer to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin stated the staff had not looked
into R-1.5 zoning instead of R-2. He added he was not sure the applicant was
considering R-2 with the intent to split the property and have a smaller lot width.
In answer to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Conklin stated two duplexes on the
property accessed Highway 62 and two were accessed off of Old Ozark Trail.
In answer to an inquiry, Mr. Conklin advised that, if the developer intended to
• subdivide and sell the lots on the south side of Old Ozark Trail, the subdivision or
lot split would have to come through the subdivision process. He further stated
that, if the intent was to develop four additional duplexes, the applicant would be
required to go through the large scale development process since the property was
over an acre in size.
Mr. Conklin noted all four of the current duplexes were sitting on one tract and the
request was to rezone the entire property including the four existing duplexes.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Conklin advised R-2 zoning allowed up
to 24 units per acre for duplex development and 48 units per acre if developed with
apartment units.
Mr. Allen Holland, the owner of the property, explained the reason for the rezoning
request and stated he did not feel the property would be conducive to single-family
residences.
Ms. Britton expressed concern the R-2 zoning would allow 48 units on the property.
She suggested they consider rezoning the property to R-1.5, a lesser density zoning.
Ms. Little advised R-1.5 would allow duplexes as a use by right, a smaller lot size
than R-1 with a conditional use, and up to 12 units per acre.
Mr. Holland advised he was unaware of R-1.5 zoning.
Mr. Conklin asked whether Mr. Holland intended to subdivide or split the property in
any manner.
Mr. Holland explained the purpose of rezoning the property was to see what they could
do with it. He added he had been unaware of how many units could be built on until
he contacted the Planning Office and was told the tract could be split into four
40 lots.
110
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 9
Ms. Britton advised an R-1 zoning would allow a split into four lots, even up to more
than 8 lots. She further noted a conditional use could be granted to allow the
development of duplexes in an R-1 zoning district.
Mr. Allred disagreed with Ms. Britton and advised he did not oppose the R-2 since the
property was on a major highway.
Ms. Britton advised she was not concerned with the property being R-2 if it would not
contain 48 units right next to single-family homes.
Mr. Allred stated the single-family homes were all older homes that would probably
be changed. He added the area was in a transition and, in all probability, the
north part of the subject tract should be commercial. He suggested the Commission
look at the land use and not the owner's plans.
Mr. Conklin advised under R-1 with a conditional use any intent to subdivide the
property into lots on the south side of Old Ozark Trail would be based on the lot
width of 80 feet which gave the potential for three lots since there was 276 feet of
frontage; with R-2, four lots would be allowed. He added that R-1.5 would be the
same lot size as single-family and the developer would be able to subdivide three
lots on the south side.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to recommend approval of the rezoning as requested subject to staff
comments.
The motion was seconded by Pummill.
• The motion carried 9-0-0.
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL NO. R94-13
EOFF TRUST III, MAURICE BARNES, CLAUDE CURRY, S VERNON LIERLY - E OF FOTRALL DRIVE,
NORTH OF OLD FARMINGTON ROAD
The next item was a public hearing for Rezoning R94-13 submitted by Lynn Farrell on
behalf of Eoff Trust III, Maurice Barnes, Claude Curry, and Vernon Lierly for
property located on the east side of Futrall Drive, north of Old Farmington Road.
The request is to rezone 20.04 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential and R -o.
Residential -Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned for C-2 zoning in order to develop
a regional commercial use on the site. He pointed out the 2010 General Plan did
recognize that the Highway 62 Bypass interchange was one of the four areas to direct
regional type of commercial uses. He stated that, when the site was developed, the
owner would be required to go through the large scale development process, at which
time on-site and off-site improvements would be required. He noted that, to the
north, there was R-1 zoning on vacant land; to the east was the Fayetteville West
Campus which was zoned P-1, Institutional; to the west was C-2 zoning with the Bypass
and commercial uses; to the south was C-2 zoning with commercial uses. He also
pointed out the 6 -inch water and sewer line along Old Farmington Road and a 21 -inch
force main along Futrall Drive. He noted access to the Bite was from Futrall Drive
which was classified as a collector street under the Master Street Plan. He
recommended approval of the requested rezoning. He pointed out rezoning the property
would be consistent with the recommendation and policies outlined in the 2010 Plan.
Mr. Allred asked if the new overlay district being worked on would apply to this as
the development.
• Ms. Little stated it would depend on the time -frame in which the overlay district was
adopted and added it would also apply to any large scale developments or subdivisions
which occurred after the date of adoption.
Mr. Allred clarified it could have an impact on the development, but it should not
have an impact on the zoning of it.
Ms. Little agreed.
Ms. Britton inquired as to whether there were any streets other than Old Farmington
Road that could access back through to interior streets.
Mr. Conklin stated possibly Stone Street could be accessed between the P-1 and the
R-2 where a development was currently coming through. He also noted there was right-
of-way to the west that possibly extended to or into the subject property.
Ms. Little stated Stone Street was the street beginning at the east and heading to
the west north of the P-1 school property. She explained there was a subdivision
which had been through Plat Review and Subdivision Committee where additional access
to the west had been requested by the staff. She stated the street would be extended
to the west but not the complete length of the remaining property.
Ms. Britton expressed concern that, if the property developed as C-2, all the traffic
would be forced to go through the intersection.
Ms. Little advised Futrall Drive existed all the way to the north and South which
would take traffic up to Wedington as well.
•
ll2
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 11
Ms. Britton noted it would still impact an interchange where ingress and egress off
the highway was taking place. She added she was concerned the traffic could not
disburse in more than a north/south direction.
Mr. Conklin advised he had reviewed traffic direction and noted that, given the
infrastructure currently in place, Futrall Drive did have access onto the Bypass
going north. He also pointed out there was a signalized intersection onto a 5 -lane
principal arterial (Highway 62) and access on the Bypass at that location. He
advised it was the staff's opinion that, if they were going to site some type of
regional use which would generate traffic, the subject tract would be one of the
better locations in Fayetteville.
Ms. Britton asked if all of the property was on a fairly gentle grade.
Mr. Conklin noted it was his understanding the tract was fairly level before it
started going up hill.
Mr. Lynn Farrell advised the particular tracts included in the rezoning request were
basically level and noted it was to the north of this site that the elevation
increased.
Mr. Farrell advised the owners had owned the subject property since prior to
construction of the Bypass and the service road, Futrall Drive. He added he had
contacted Dr. Winston Simpson, Superintendent of Fayetteville Public Schools, who
endorsed and supported this application. He further noted the property owner to the
immediate north was in attendance and he concurred with the zoning change. He
further stated the property to the south and the west were already zoned C-2.
• MOTION
Mr. Head moved to recommend approval of rezoning request R94-13 subject to staff
comments.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds.
The motion carried 9-0-0.
Ms. Britton inquired at what point the Commission needed to determine the development
overloaded the intersection. She noted that, if commercial development took place
all along Futrall Drive and all vehicles had to access either at the top or the
bottom, there would be a corridor of very heavy traffic which intersected at each end
with another heavy corridor of traffic.
Ms. Little stated the only way to determine when a commission action would overload
an intersection would be to have traffic counts on the street, the average daily
traffic during the peak hours, and then know the uses allowed under the current
zoning to project the traffic generation and then compare that count to the capacity
of the roadway.
1131
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
Page 12
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPEAL R94-14
PERRY CRAWFORD - N OF JOYCE BLVD, W OF CROSSOVER RD
The next item was a public hearing for rezoning Appeal R94-14 submitted by Neal
Pendergraft on behalf of Perry Crawford for property located on the north side of
Joyce Boulevard, west of Crossover Road. The request is to rezone 2.63 acres from
A-1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential -Office.
Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had petitioned for R -O zoning in order to develop
a professional doctor's office on the site. He stated access to the site was from
Joyce Boulevard which was planned to be widened to four lanes in 1995. He further
stated intersection improvements to Joyce and Highway 265 were planned for this year.
He advised there currently was an 8 -inch water line and an 8 -inch sewer line along
Joyce Boulevard. He noted additional on-site and off-site improvements would be
required through the subdivision or large scale development process. He pointed out
there was vacant land to the north, east, and west. He advised the land was zoned
A-1 to the north and west; R-1 to the east; and to the south was R-2 with an existing
townhouse development. He recommended approval of the rezoning request. He
explained the subject property did adjoin property to the east and south already
zoned R -O and R-2.
Ms. Britton expressed her concern that, with the commercial development at the end
of Joyce), there would be a certain amount of friction. She expressed concern that
the idea of making a four -lane roadway in order to carry a heavy traffic load would
be negated by allowing multiple curb cuts.
Ms. Little explained staff had been looking for the appropriate land use for the
• area. She contended leaving the area agricultural was probably not feasible along
a four -lane street. She further explained Staff made their decision based on the
fact there was R -O immediately east of the Subject property and multi -family housing
units directly to the south. She noted the four-laning of Joyce Street was to bring
this road to a point that would provide the badly needed east/west access and it was
inherent that adjoining property would develop.
Mr. Neal Pendergraft, representing the owner, advised that Dr. Harvey Smith had a
contract on the property conditioned on the property being rezoned.
Ms. Britton advised there was a very exclusive residential development fronting on
the golf course directly south of the subject tract and the existing Residential -
office was a transition between the residential area and the commercial area at the
intersection. She expressed concern that, in allowing the subject rezoning, would
add too much to a transition area. She noted her main concern was traffic and
suggested this development be kept to one curb cut.
.cc (Q:I
Mr. Nickle moved to recommend approval of rezoning request R94-14.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Reynolds.
The motion carried 9-0-0.
I
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 13
PRELIMINARY PLAT - WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN ESTATES
HAROLD JOHNSON - W OF SHILOH, S OF 15TH
The next item was a preliminary plat of Washington Mountain Estates submitted by
Harry Gray on behalf of Harold Johnson for property located on the west side of
Shiloh, south of 15th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains 11.67 acres with 33 proposed lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the utility
representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than some easement changes and
crossings requested by the utilities and agreed to by the owners. He stated staff
comments included a request for some street light changes which were made, the
requirement that all lots access the interior streets of the subdivision, sidewalks
along Shiloh, and the need to note which lots have a 20% or greater slope because
those lots will require individual grading permits. He added it was noted the City
would accept a Bill of Assurance on sidewalks along Shiloh Drive. He advised there
were no other significant issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting.
He recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and
Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of
a detailed plan for the water, sewer, streets and drainage; payments of parks fees
in accordance with City ordinances; and installation of sidewalks in accordance with
City ordinances. He reminded the Commission this was a revision of a preliminary
plat brought before the Commission some time earlier. He noted there would be a
request for a conditional use at a later meeting for duplexes on the first two tiers
of lots. He pointed out Shiloh Drive at this point was under control of the State
rather than the City.
• Ms. Little advised the staff was aware of the conditional use request for 13 duplex
lots out of a total of 33 (with the remaining 20 lots as single-family). She noted
the staff neglected to put the Conditional Use notification in the newspaper so it
would be scheduled for the next meeting.
Mr. Bunn stated the lots were of sufficient size for single-family residences so that
the plat could be approved without regard to the conditional use.
In answer to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Bunn stated he was not aware of any
plans to take Shiloh Drive on through to Cato Springs Road.
Ms. Little advised that was not planned, but the City had asked the State to consider
such extension.
Mr. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers, representing the developer, advised this was
a replat of Woodside Addition; a plat with 45 single-family lots (several fronting
on Shiloh) which the Planning Commission had denied. He pointed out that, with the
revised layout, there was only one lot accessing to Shiloh. He reiterated a
conditional use for duplexes had been applied for and the lots with a conditional use
would have 12,000 square feet under the R-1 zoning.
In response to a question from Me. Britton, Mr. Gray advised the Johnsons owned
approximately 120 acres at the top of Washington Mountain which eventually could
develop.
Ms. Britton asked about the topography to the west where the street was located.
Mr. Gray stated it was a mountainside, but they had tried to anticipate the best
access from the east. He explained that, with ultimate development of the
mountaintop, there could be access to Finger Road or the street on the west side of
. Wal-Mart.
1161
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 14
Mr, Tim Conklin advised the Parka Board would review this plat on April 4th. He
noted the Parks staff had recommended to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to
accept money in lieu of land based on the location and site of the subdivision.
MOTION
Mr. Allred moved to accept the preliminary plat subject to the staff's comments.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Britton.
The motion carried 9-0-0.
•
•
l me l
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
• Page 15
PRELIMINARY PLAT - HUNTCLUB SUBDIVISION
BRAD & VONDA WRIGHT - SW CORNER OF HUNT LN & HUNTSVILLE RD
The next item is a preliminary plat of Huntclub Subdivision submitted by Leonard
Gabbard on behalf of Brad & Vonda Wright for property located on the southwest corner
of Hunt Lane and Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential
and contains 9.98 acres with 31 lots.
Mr. Bunn stated there were no significant comments by any of the utility
representatives at the Plat Review meeting other than additional easements and
crossings requested which were agreed to by the owner. He advised the principal
issue was the location of the first street going into the subdivision. He explained
the developer had re -submitted the plat to the Subdivision Committee with staff's
recommended changes. He noted other staff remarks included comments on the street
light spacing and parks fees. He stated that, at the Subdivision Committee,
discussion took place in regard to the location of the street; off-site improvements
to Hunt Lane which would involve the upgrading of Hunt Lane to city street standards
on their side of the street; sidewalks along Hunt Lane and Highway 16 (the developer
was requesting a waiver of sidewalks on Highway 16 due to topography).
He recommended the preliminary plat be approved subject to the Plat Review and
Subdivision Committee comments; approval of a grading and drainage plan; approval of
detailed plans for water, sewer, streets, and drainage; payment of the parks fees and
installation of sidewalks in accordance with city ordinances; improvement of one-half
of Hunt Lane to city street standards; and the condition that the plat be sent back
to the Plat Review Committee for the purpose of giving the utility companies a chance
to review the final street location and request additional or different easements.
• In answer to an inquiry by Ms. Britton as to whether a Bill of Assurance was
discussed in regard to the sidewalk along East Huntsville Road, Ms. Little explained
the staff had discussed the sidewalk issue. She noted there was a slight grade with
an estimated height differential of between 6 to 8 feet coming up from Hunt Lane and
the staff felt a bill of assurance might be a good way to offer a compromise on the
sidewalk.
Mr. Bunn reiterated the developer was requesting a waiver and not offering a Bill of
Assurance.
In answer to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn advised the condition was to send
the plat back through just the Plat Review meeting and any changes there could be
handled administratively without having to come back through the Planning Commission.
Mr. Brad Wright, the developer, pointed out the number of lots had been cut from 31
to 29. He also pointed out there were not any sidewalks between probably the
Fayetteville Court House and Ozark, Arkansas. He asked for a sidewalk waiver, but
stated he would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance.
MOTION
Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff comments and
approval of the sidewalk waiver along Highway 16 (Huntsville Road).
The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle.
The motion carried 7-2-0 with Commissioners Allred, Suchecki, Nickle, Johnson,
Tarvin, Pummill, and Head voting "yea" and Commissioners Britton and Reynolds voting
"no".
117]
Planning Commission
• March 28, 1994
Page 16
OTHER BUSINESS
A. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT REVISION OF "GREENSPACE" ORDINANCE
Mr. Tim Conklin advised there had been a meeting between a subcommittee of the
Planning Commission, members of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, the Planning
staff, and the Parks & Recreation staff to work on the existing greenspace ordinance
and discuss issues they had been facing for the past couple of years. He referred
to the copy of the greenspace ordinance submitted to the Commission which highlighted
all the changes. He explained they had attempted to clean up the ordinance by adding
some major changes in response to the recommendations made by Commission members,
Parks & Recreation Board members and staff, and City staff.
He advised they had taken into consideration the recommendations made by Commissioner
Britton in regard to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and the developer making
a joint recommendation to the Planning Commission. He explained that, with this
change there would be separate recommendations only if the two entities disagreed and
in which case the Commission would determine the issue.
He noted another major change was to alleviate the reoccurring problem of the park
land issue being unresolved by the time the preliminary plat came before the
Commission. He explained the ordinance would require the developer to go to the
Parks & Recreation Department first. He explained this was an issue the staff would
like to have resolved prior to the plat being reviewed by the Planning Commission.
He advised the Commission would still have the ability to accept any joint
recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, but the decision of park
land or money in lieu of park land would be in the Planning Commission's hands.
• Mr. Conklin stated Ms. Britton had also asked for clarification that dedications of
land must be made before final plat approval or large scale development approval.
He advised the issue of when money was to be collected was also discussed and changed
to make the process work better. He explained currently the money in lieu was
collected at the building permit stage, but the change would make it possible to
collect the money up front so it would be available for the development of the park
area within that corridor. He stated the timeframe had been discussed and the
Committee agreed to allow the developer to make the payment by three installments
within one year.
He further stated the City Attorney had drafted the ordinance and basically allowed
for three equal installments with the Planning Commission deciding when the
development would have to pay the money within the one-year time period.
Mr. Conklin noted a paragraph was also added to state that, if the actual density of
the development was increased, it had to be re -reviewed by the Commission and by the
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board.
He noted any variations for the land dedication ratios or formulas used in
determining the amount of money would have to be approved by the City Council.
He went on to say that, in response to some issues of concern, the City Attorney had
incorporated a statement that, if a subdivision proposed to contribute services,
maintenance to facilities, or equipment in lieu of a cash contribution, such
contribution would not be accepted by the City without prior recommendation from the
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board as to the appropriateness and safety of such
contribution.
He added the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board would be taking up the issue on the
• amount of fees required. He explained Connie Edmonston of the Parks staff had
obtained three appraisals of raw land based on per acre value: in 1992, the value of
a one acre plot of land was $9,000 and, based on the three recent appraisals, there
was an average value of $12,000 per lot currently. He pointed out this represented
1/91
Planning Commission
. March 28, 1994
Page 17
approximately a 33% increase in the parks fees they would be discussing at their
April 4th meeting.
Mr. Conklin stated the staff was presenting this information to the Commission to
review, discuss and give further direction. He added the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board was looking at possibly increasing park fee requirements. He stated
staff would like comments from the Planning Commission.
He advised another issue of concern was the development of property under an acre
with dwelling units not being assessed with parks fees. He explained Mr. Rose had
drafted an ordinance which required any developments under an acre or that fall
through the cracks of the ordinance, to pay the appropriate parks fees. He further
stated Mr. Rose proposed a definition of "developer" in order to eliminate the word
"subdivider" under the Greenspace Ordinance.
Mr. Nickle asked for clarification in regard to the statement that, if the
subdivision proposed to contribute services, maintenance, facilities or equipment in
lieu of a cash contribution would not be accepted by the City unless a prior
recommendation was obtained from the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board as to the
appropriateness and safety of such contribution. He asked if that meant the City
Board had to have a recommendation to approve or just a recommendation as to whether
the proposal was appropriate or inappropriate.
Mr. Conklin advised they were trying to address the concern that a developer would
buy recreation equipment which was not approved by the City. He stated the Parks
Board wanted to be able to review what type of facilities the developer would be
trying to purchase and have a recommendation to the City Council before a
• determination was made.
In response to Mr. Nickle's comments, Ms. Little advised the section would be
reworded to state it "shall not be accepted by the City unless the Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board has been consulted and provided a recommendation as to the
appropriateness and safety of that contribution."
There was further discussion between the staff and the Commission with clarification
and suggestions made to change the wording in some areas.
Mr. Pummill expressed concern in regard to the issue of raising the amount of parks
fees.
Mr. Conklin advised the Parks Department had been looking into an increase in the
appreciation of land and how the fee was calculated based on the value of land in
1992. He stated the Parks Board would be meeting and discussing that on April 4th.
He encouraged the Commission members to provide their comments to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board,
Ms. Little advised the parks fee amount was not a part of the present proposed
changes. She stated she believed it would be appropriate, however, to include any
changes to the parks fees with this proposal.
Mr. Reynolds stated there were a lot of existing and older homes selling in
Fayetteville and he was concerned only the people buying new houses were being taxed.
He asked if there was some way to implement all real estate sales into the program
to make it fair.
Ms. Little explained the idea behind
the ordinance
was
that the
development of each
house created the need for park space.
She pointed
out
the need
for park space would
• accrued at the time the home was created. She agreed each person moving into
Fayetteville did not buy a new home. She added this was something that could be
explored, but had not been explored well enough to make a recommendation to the
Commission at this time.
i1q 1
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
Page 18
Ms. Britton commented it was rational to assume the older homes were serviced by the
existing parks.
Mr. Conklin advised the greenspace fee was the developer's proportionate share of
providing park land or money in lieu of park land for new services created by
development.
Mr. Suchecki asked if the proposed change to the ordinance added another step for the
developer in the process of plat approval.
Mr. Conklin advised the change would add a step, but whether it would add any
additional time depended on whether land was being required. He explained currently
there were subdivisions plats approved by the Planning Commission at the preliminary
plat level which had to be reviewed again after the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
requested land. He further explained the entire subdivision had to be replatted in
those cases and go through the entire plat review process again. He advised staff
believed the developer needed to find out whether land was going to be required in
a subdivision prior to submittal for plat review. He added the Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board had agreed to consider meeting twice a month in order to speed up the
process.
Mr. Suchecki asked for clarification as to whether the ordinance stated land was
required and, unless it was topographically impossible, the developers might as well
plan to give land.
Ms. Little agreed that was what the ordinance said. She pointed out that portion was
the same as the current ordinance. She explained the Parks Board needed the
• flexibility to be able to designate some areas where they could acquire land for
larger parks. She went on to say some neighborhoods would not have neighborhood
parks and reminded the Commission of the two subdivisions reviewed earlier. She
noted the Parks Board needed to be able to set their own priorities as to whether the
need was for land or money. She explained it was not relevant to the Planning Staff
whether land or money was recommended, but staff did need to know the recommendation
prior to the plat review process in order to save the developer and staff time. She
further stated that, in essence, the proposed change was an attempt to shorten the
process.
Mr. Allred responded to the comment made by Mr. Conklin in regard to the increase in
land values since 1990. He pointed out there was not an acre of land in northwest
Fayetteville that could be purchased for $12,000 an acre. He added if that was not
kept in perspective, it could get blown out of proportion.
Ms. Little advised those were the figures that came to Planning staff from the Parks
Department staff based on raw land and not including any of the costs of improvement.
Mr. Allred questioned if it would be appropriate to ask the City Attorney to review
the existing laws in regard to whether land being required for parks was considered
taking land without just compensation.
Ms. Little advised such a case was before the Supreme Court and they would have to
wait and see what the Court decided.
Mr. Nickle stated he believed the existing ordinance was unclear as to whether the
developer had the option to donate the land or the cash.
Ms. Britton advised she had talked to the City Attorney regarding clarifying that
section by requiring the land with money being a compromise in lieu of the land.
. Mr. Tarvin reminded the Commission they had previously discussed the difference in
land costs in various quadrants of the City. He asked if any consideration had been
given to making the fees different for different quadrants.
Planning Commission
• March 28, 1994
Page 19
Mr. Conklin explained the Planning staff did not address the fees; that was addressed
by the Parks staff. He stated the Parks Board would be meeting on that issue on
April 4th.
Mr, Jerry Sweetser, a member of the audience, commented it did not seem fair to put
all of the expense on the newcomer, the person buying a new house. He noted the
greenspace fee seemed to be a fund raising effort to acquire more money with
developers as the tax collectors. He expressed concern that new a buyer of a lot
paid for park improvements but people were using the parks that never made a
contribution. He suggested a transfer fee might be a better method. He advised
that, if the Parks Board was trying to raise funds, they should raise them on a fair
and equitable basis. He asked why the newcomer had the burden of purchasing and
maintaining the parks. He asked if the idea was to burden the developers so much
that growth was stopped. He further stated that, in his opinion, he was not sure
addition money was needed and noted that, from watching the Parks operation, possibly
an efficiency expert was needed first.
Mr. Pummill expressed his concern that none of the money could be used to maintain
park land already acquired which was overgrown.
Mr. Sweetser reiterated he did not feel it was fair for the newcomers to have the
burden of providing parks. He suggested a small broad base tax would be a good
method to use to increase parks funds.
Mr. Tarvin agreed City parks were something that everybody used and enjoyed. He
suggested it would be simpler to have some sort of general support.
. Ms. Little explained that whatever was built took approximately 18 months to come
onto the tax roll so the theory was any new needs created by development were met by
an impact fee whether it was for parks, streets, etc.
Mr. Sweetser reminded the Commission all the new infrastructure in Fayetteville was
built by the developers, not the City. He stated it was not feasible to say the
developers did not pay their fair share.
Me. Little advised impact fees could never pay the entire cost of development. She
further stated there was a City obligation to provide services.
Mr. Pummill reminded the Commission of the report received last September showing
approximately $150,000 collected to acquire more park lands. He stated it was his
understanding none of that money could be used for maintaining existing parks which
are in terrible disarray. He contended he did not understand why they were spending
all the time trying to figure out an angle to collect funds but not paying any
attention as to how they could maintain the existing land. He agreed a small tax
across the board would be a much better approach and could be used to maintain and
acquire land.
Ms. Fran Alexander, a member of the audience, commended the recommendation that Mr.
Conklin read stating the park space allotment, as well as the drainage, would be
presented early in the plat process.
Mr. Conklin explained the only change to the ordinance would be to have the land
dedication decided prior to submittal of the preliminary plat.
Ms. Little pointed out that could affect the drainage, however, because the parks
could be better planned around drainage situations.
Me. Alexander noted two recent subdivisions reviewed by the Commission, Jackson Parke
and Barrington Parke, would have benefitted greatly if the citizens had the
opportunity for input earlier. She expressed concern that drainage problems should
be taken into consideration very early and not right before final plat approval. She
201 1
Planning Commission
March 28, 1994
Page 20
contended land dedication did not necessarily mean parks, but could just mean open
space for elbow room and greenery. She recommended that, when density was being
calculated, the acreage be decreased by the area taken by streets.
Ms. Britton commented she believed the City needed an overall way of maintaining the
parks and she would not be opposed to a millage. She further stated the greenspace
ordinance did a very good job of coordinating acquisition of land in the same areas
where development was occurring.
B. SUMMARY DOCUMENTS OF GENERAL PLAN AND GENERAL BUSINESS
Ms. Little advised that the summary documents of the General Plan were available in
the Planning Office for their review prior to it being published. She explained the
cost of the Plan was approximately $65 each.
C. SWEPCO TOWER
Ms. Little pointed out the letter distributed to the Commission regarding the SWEPCO
property on the top of Mt. Sequoyah. She stated she believed the Commission needed
to ask a representative from SWEPCO to come to a meeting and address the Commission
as to their intentions.
Mr. Conklin announced a meeting at 10:30 a.m. next Friday with the Assistant City
Attorney. He also asked for volunteers to attend a noon meeting to review additional
flood plain regulations and incorporate the regulations into the new ordinance.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
E
10